Work Tips: The Dangers of Starting with a Story

Hello everyone! I've been tuning in to the indie game dev pages on Facebook and I've noticed an interesting pattern. I've notice that many people start with a picture and a story of what kind of game they want to make and go into a lot of detail on how their story will unfold and develop. I thought to myself, "Isn't that a wrong way of making a game?" Looking back on it now, starting a game with a story isn't wrong, but there are risks associated with it.




 The biggest issue with starting a game with a story is restriction and expansion. By that I mean a story for a potential game might restrict the game play from being more inclusive of new mechanics and limit any new ideas.

On the other hand, a story might provide so much variety and complexity that the mechanics that the game inherits from the story to make sense of it might not be fun or work well together, or might even be too much for the developers to make themselves.

If a story is going to be integrated into a game, the mechanics must be contextualized and make sense, must be consistent throughout the game, and must be fun.

Contextualized mechanics means that the mechanics make sense in the context of the story the game is portraying. It doesn't make sense if you are pushing around a baby stroller in a war FPS unless the story gives players a logical reason why they must do it. Not contextualizing mechanics runs the risk of confusing players or turning them off from your game (unless your game is consistently inconsistent. Then it doesn't matter).

Speaking of which, the mechanics must be consistent throughout the game. The mechanics generally mustn't change. Even a game like Saints Row IV with its variety sticks with consistent mechanics, despite being peppered with various mini games. It doesn't stop being a third person action-adventure halfway through the game to be a first person shooter for the rest of it. It gives players mental whiplash having to play with unfamiliar controls because the story demands it. There should be some form of consistency and familiarity throughout the game.

Finally, the mechanics must be fun. This is where my general guideline starts to fall apart, but personally I think that it shouldn't be overlooked. The game must be fun and engaging to play, otherwise why would the player want to stick around? Sometimes a really good story and a well designed game can be rejected by a player because it wasn't fun to play. Sometimes the story is enough to carry a player forward. An example of this being Gone Home, where the player primarily walks around a house and looks at stuff. That game play alone sounds very boring, yet it was a hit and was well received. Despite that though, it does satisfy the first two points.

In summary, the mechanics should not be ignored because of the story, and ideally the two should work in harmony to present a unique experience. The mechanics should reinforce the story being told which makes players feel like part of the story instead of an observing player. Mechanics must be contextualized and consistent, and ideally fun.

If you disagree with me, write a comment or email me directly! I'll gladly respond if you respectfully explain why I'm wrong and what you think is right. Thank you for reading! Until next time!